Category: Politics

More and more scientists, professors and philosophers alike are warning about the potential catastrophes that steady growth can lead to. They urge politicians, business people, and the average citizens to start questioning the exponential growth model upon which modern civilization is based.

What is Exponential Growth?

Exponential growth sounds simple enough. Most people learned about it in high school algebra class. It is not a complicated principle, but it is one that is often forgotten, to society’s detriment. It means that something is growing steadily; it’s increasing at a percentage rate. Any steady growth is exponential growth. If the population is growing at a rate of 1%, it is increasing exponentially. The only difference between a rate of growth of 1% and 10% is the doubling time.

For instance, if a population is growing at a rate of 1% per year, it will double in 70 years. If the population is growing at a rate of 10%, it will double in only 7 years. So, if there is a population of 1 billion people, growing at a rate of 1%, the population will be 2 billion in 70 years, 4 billion in 140 years, 8 billion in 210 years, and a laughable 16 billion in 280 years. In essence, the population has gone from 1 billion people to 16 billion in only 4 lifetimes, at a mere 1% growth rate.

Why is Steady Growth Bad?

The problem is that most of the economic and social systems that civilization depends on nowadays are based on exponential growth. High rates of growth are encouraged in the economy, in technological advances, in the size of communities, etc. It’s been taught through schools and the media, that the systems will flounder if they do not keep growing.

The problem is that there simply is not enough room for human systems to keep growing. The growth of the economy, technology and most everything else that people consider progress is running into very real physical limitations. They rely on the exploitation of limited natural resources. Unlimited growth cannot happen in a world with limited resources. Even the amount of space people have, the area in which people can move around is a limited resource. Therefore, exponential growth can be very dangerous.

To put the example above in real terms, our global population is currently 6.8 billion. It was only 3 billion in 1960. This is very alarming. The human species is now growing at a rate of 1.1%. So, in one lifetime from now, less than 70 years, the global population will be 13.6 billion. The median estimate that published works refer to as the carrying capacity of the Earth is 12 billion (Cohen). Meaning that, on average, most experts think that the world’s resources cannot support more than 12 billion human beings.

Economic vs Population Growth

However, it’s not only population growth that is alarming. It’s economic growth as well. It’s simply not feasible to have continued steady (exponential) growth of an economy based on material inputs and outputs in a world with limited resources. Yet, the media, politicians, and corporations continue to encourage the citizens to identify themselves as consumers. “Help the economy grow!” they exclaim. It is a safe conclusion to make that they don’t understand the exponential function within the context of real, planetary limits.

In conclusion, what could be considered the human race’s biggest challenge right now is to do exactly what everyone’s been told is bad: stop the growth. It’s time to balance out. The human race must now find an entirely new mode of existence. A mode of existence that involves keeping populations, economies and resource use at a steady (not growing-not shrinking) level; the ultimate balancing act.

Anyone with a personal budget to balance knows how tricky it can be, and how easy to spend more than they’re taking in. Mortgage payments, electric bills, food and all the other essential expenses really add up, and on a limited income, this may not leave a lot for anything unnecessary. The government is no exception to this rule. The majority of what the government collects goes to defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other support programs. Depending on one’s perspective and political affiliation, some of these may not be considered necessary expenditures; however, millions of dollars are spent each year on various items and programs that may come as a surprise.

Republican Congressman Eric Cantor launched the You Cut program to allow the public the opportunity not only to see what the government is spending their money on but also a chance to vote on what spending cuts they would like to see enacted. Here’s a short list of the winning cuts from previous weeks:

Prohibit “First Class” Subsidies on Amtrak: Amtrak loses more than twice as much per passenger for their “sleeper” class service as compared to coach class, and they receive federal tax money to make up for this. The cut would Amtrak to provide the service at cost and possibly save a billion dollars over ten years.

Reduce Government Employment to 2008 Levels: About 188,000 new employees have been hired by the federal government since 2008. This proposal suggests hiring only one person to replace every two who leave, saving $35 billion over ten years.

Prohibit Stimulus Funding for Promotional Signage and Recoup Previously Spent Funds: Highway signs have been put up across the United States letting citizens know about various projects that are funded by the stimulus. The signs themselves are thought to cost millions of dollars. The cut would prohibit any further spending and collect what has already been spent by reducing administrative expenses for the agencies equal to what they spent on the signs.

Sell Excess Federal Property: It was reported in 2007 that the federal government holds about $18 million in the unused federal property. Federal law typically requires that the property be offered to government agencies and state and local governments. With this cut, federal law would be changed to allow the property to be sold instead, with 80% of proceeds going towards the federal deficit.

In addition to allowing people to vote on that week’s choices, they are also encouraged to submit their own ideas for cuts. At the very least, it’s an eye-opening experience to see what else taxes pay for, and what a difference it could make to pay a little more attention to what could be saved and not just what needs to be spent.

Fox News issued an apology Saturday for a graphic displaying stock market performances in the aftermaths of the deaths and violence against black Americans including George Floyd, Martin Luther King Jr., Michael Brown and...

Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown on Friday said was told that the 75-year-old man who was pushed down by police in a viral video was a "major instigator" and an "agitator.""According to what was reported to me, that...

President Trump's campaign is spending money to defend Ohio, an unexpected development that underscores the president's polling weakness amid the coronavirus pandemic and civil unrest wracking the country.Trump won...